RAMOS VS.

REYES

FACTS:

petitioners Resident Marine Mammals allegedly bring their case in their personal
capacity, alleging that they stand to benefit or be injured from the judgment on the issues.
The human petitioners implead themselves in a representative capacity "as legal
guardians of the lesser life-forms and as responsible stewards of God's Creations." They1

use Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. as basis for their claim.

2

As the representatives of Resident Marine Mammals, the human petitioners assert that
they have the obligation to build awareness among the affected residents of Taon Strait
as well as to protect the environment, especially in light of the government's failure, as
primary steward, to do its duty under the doctrine of public trust.4

Resident Marine Mammals and the human petitioners also assert that through this case,
this court will have the opportunity to lower the threshold for locus standi as an exercise of
"epistolary jurisdiction."
5

The zeal of the human petitioners to pursue their desire to protect the environment and to
continue to define environmental rights in the context of actual cases is commendable.

The human petitioners, in G.R. No. 180771, want us to create substantive and procedural
rights for animals through their allegation that they can speak for them. Obviously, we are
asked to accept the premises that (a) they were chosen by the Resident Marine Mammals
of Taon Strait; (b) they were chosen by a representative group of all the species of the
Resident Marine Mammals; (c) they were able to communicate with them; and (d) they
received clear consent from their animal principals that they would wish to use human
legal institutions to pursue their interests. Alternatively, they ask us to acknowledge
through judicial notice that the interests that they, the human petitioners, assert are
identical to what the Resident Marine Mammals would assert had they been humans and
the legal strategies that they invoked are the strategies that they agree with.

In the alternative, they want us to accept through judicial notice that there is a relationship
of is can be the occasion for abuse.

ISSUES:

1. WON petitioners Resident Marine Mammals are the real party in interest in this case.
2. WON Pres. Gloria M. Arroyo be impleaded as unwilling co-petitioner.

RULING:

1. NO
2. NO

II

Rule 3, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in part, provides:

SECTION 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only natural or juridical
persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.

The Rules provide that parties may only be natural or juridical persons or entities that may
be authorized by statute to be parties in a civil action.

ARTICLE 44. The following are juridical persons:

(1) The State and its political subdivisions;

(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created
by law; their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to
law;

(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to

which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each
shareholder, partner or member.

Petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 implicitly suggest that we amend, rather than simply
construe, the provisions of the Rules of Court as well as substantive law to
accommodate Resident Marine Mammals or animals. This we cannot do.

Rule 3, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure further defines real party in interest:

SEC. 2. Parties in interest.-A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited
or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless
otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended
in the name of the real party in interest. (2a)
6

A litigant who stands to benefit or sustain an injury from the judgment of a case is a real
party in interest. When a case is brought to the courts, the real party in interest must show
7

that another party's act or omission has caused a direct injury, making his or her interest
both material and based on an enforceable legal right. 8

Representatives as parties, on the other hand, are parties acting in representation of the
real party in interest, as defined in Rule 3, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:

SEC. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or

defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest.
A representative may be a trustee of an express rust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own
name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining
the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.(3a) 9

These requirements should apply even in cases involving the environment, which
means that for the Petition of the human petitioners to prosper, they must show
that (a) the Resident Marine Mammals are real parties in interest; and (b) that the
human petitioners are authorized by law or the Rules to act in a representative
capacity.

The Resident Marine Mammals are comprised of "toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises,
and other cetacean species inhabiting Taon Strait." While relatively new in Philippine
12
jurisdiction, the issue of whether animals have legal standing before courts has been
the subject of academic discourse in light of the emergence of animal and
environmental rights.

In our jurisdiction, persons and entities are recognized both in law and the Rules of Court
as having standing to sue and, therefore, may be properly represented as real parties in
interest. The same cannot be said about animals.

Animals play an important role in households, communities, and the environment. While
we, as humans, may feel the need to nurture and protect them, we cannot go as far as
saying we represent their best interests and can, therefore, speak for them before the
courts. As humans, we cannot be so arrogant as to argue that we know the suffering of
animals and that we know what remedy they need in the face of an injury.

What may be argued as being parallel to this concept of guardianship is the principle of
human stewardship over the environment in a citizen suit under the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases. A citizen suit allows any Filipino to act as a representative
of a party who has enforceable rights under environmental laws before Philippine
courts, and is defined in Section 5: .

SEC. 5. Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or
generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under
environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which
shall contain a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring
all interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen (15)
days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper of a
general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies of said order.

There is no valid reason in law or the practical requirements of this case to implead and
feign representation on behalf of animals. To have done so betrays a very anthropocentric
view of environmental advocacy. There is no way that we, humans, can claim to speak
for animals let alone present that they would wish to use our court system, which is
designed to ensure that humans seriously carry their responsibility including
ensuring a viable ecology for themselves, which of course includes compassion for
all living things.

It is my opinion that, at best, the use of the Oposa doctrine in environmental cases
should be allowed only when a) there is a clear legal basis for the representative
suit; b) there are actual concerns based squarely upon an existing legal right; c)
there is no possibility of any countervailing interests existing within the population
represented or those that are yet to be born; and d) there is an absolute necessity
for such standing because there is a threat of catastrophe so imminent that an
immediate protective measure is necessary. Better still, in the light of its costs and
risks, we abandon the precedent all together. (Emphasis in the original)
23

The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allows filing of a citizen's suit. A
citizen's suit under this rule allows any Filipino citizen to file an action for the
enforcement of environmental law on behalf of minors or generations yet unborn. It
is essentially a representative suit that allows persons who are not real parties in
interest to institute actions on behalf of the real party in interest.

In citizen's suits, persons who may have no interest in the case may file suits for others.
Uninterested persons will argue for the persons they represent, and the court will decide
based on their evidence and arguments. Any decision by the court will be binding upon
the beneficiaries, which in this case are the minors and the future generations. The court's
decision will be res judicata upon them and conclusive upon the issues presented. 25

The danger in invoking Oposa v. Factoran to justify all kinds of environmental

claims lies in its potential to diminish the value of legitimate environmental rights.
Extending the application of "real party in interest" to the Resident Marine
Mammals, or animals in general, through a judicial pronouncement will potentially
result in allowing petitions based on mere concern rather than an actual
enforcement of a right. It is impossible for animals to tell humans what their concerns
are. At best, humans can only surmise the extent of injury inflicted, if there be any.
Petitions invoking a right and seeking legal redress before this court cannot be a product
of guesswork, and representatives have the responsibility to ensure that they bring
"reasonably cogent, rational, scientific, well-founded arguments" on behalf of those they
26

represent.

III

In G.R. No. 180771, apart from adjudicating unto themselves the status of "legal
guardians" of whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species, human petitioners
also impleaded Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as "unwilling
co-petitioner" for "her express declaration and undertaking in the ASEAN Charter
to protect Taon Strait." 28

No person may implead any other person as a co-plaintiff or co-petitioner without his or
her consent. In our jurisdiction, only when there is a party that should have been a
necessary party but was unwilling to join would there be an allegation as to why that party
has been omitted. In Rule 3, Section 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:

SEC. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. -Whenever in any pleading in

which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the
omission unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.

The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be
deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.

The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the
action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such
necessary party.29

A party who should have been a plaintiff or petitioner but whose consent cannot be
obtained should be impleaded as a defendant in the nature of an unwilling co-plaintiff
under Rule 3, Section 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:

SEC. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. - If the consent of any party who should be joined as
plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall
be stated in the complaint.30

The reason for this rule is plain: Indispensable party plaintiffs who should be part of the
action but who do not consent should be put within the jurisdiction of the court through
summons or other court processes. Petitioners. should not take it upon themselves to
simply imp lead any party who does not consent as a petitioner. This places the unwilling
co-petitioner at the risk of being denied due process.

Besides, Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo cannot be a party to this suit.

As a co-equal constitutional department, we cannot assume that the President
needs to enforce policy directions by suing his or her alter-egos. The procedural
situation caused by petitioners may have gained public attention, but its legal
absurdity borders on the contemptuous. The Former President's name should be
stricken out of the title of this case.

The rest of the issues are on CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS. Not anymore related to the
Rules of Court.